SHALU Vs. PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated September 8, 2014 whereby the services of the petitioner as Executive Trainee (Finance) were terminated and to the order dated November 21, 2014 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against termination of her services as Executive Trainee (Finance) was dismissed.

(2.) SOME of the relevant facts are that an advertisement was issued on August 26, 2009 for making appointment to different posts including Executive Trainee (Finance). The advertisement did not prescribe the number of posts of Executive Trainee (Finance) against which appointment was to be made. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the petitioner having fulfilled the requisite conditions applied for the said post in the category of 'Scheduled Caste'. On December 19, 2010, National Power Training Institute, a body under the Ministry of Power, Government of India conducted the written test on behalf of respondent and prepared a merit list. In April, 2011, the petitioner was called for interview and having been declared successful was given an offer of appointment as Executive Trainee (Finance) on June 07, 2011. Pursuant thereto, after appearing in the medical test, the petitioner joined the said post. According to her, she has been discharging her duties since then to the best of her ability and received appreciation and commendation letters from the authorities.

(3.) THE case of the respondent as pleaded in the reply is that the Vigilance Department of the respondent had carried out investigation on the complaints received regarding irregularity in the recruitment of Executive Trainee (Finance) in the respondent organisation. During investigation, it was observed that the respondent had engaged NPTI to conduct written test for recruitment to various posts including two posts of Executive Trainee (Finance) vide letter dated April 12, 2010. Initially NPTI was intimated vide letters dated April 12, 2010 that there are two vacancies of Executive Trainee (Finance), one for Unreserved and another for OBC. NPTI conducted written test on December 19, 2010. Pursuant thereto, it vide letter dated December 22, 2010 proposed to prepare a merit list for interview in the ratio of 1:5 for General and OBC category candidates. However, some changes were effected in the category -wise vacancies and the vacancy of OBC was later on changed to SC category under the garb of revising the reservation roaster. The respondent had pointed out that the then Deputy Manager (HR), Recruitment submitted a note dated December 27, 2010 to GM (HR) through the then DGM (Incharge) HR proposing to call General category candidates in the ratio of 1:5 and SC category candidates in the ratio of 1:10 for interview. While proposing the ratio of 1:10 in respect of SC category in his note dated December 27, 2010, he made a reference of DoPT OM dated January 06, 2006 pertaining to fixing of zone of consideration in the case of promotions and further, in his note dated December 30, 2010 he submitted that the same ratio was being followed in other PSUs and the fact, the same has been recommended by NPTI. According to the respondent, the DoPT OM dated January 06, 2006 is applicable in the matter of promotions. Even the OM stipulates that for each vacancy either in General or SC category, the zone of consideration is 1:5 and the NPTI had never recommended the ratio of 1:10 for SC candidates in its letter dated December 22, 2010. It was their case that the then Deputy Manager (HR), Recruitment misguided/misled the management by quoting wrong facts that NPTI had also recommended zone of consideration as 1:10 in respect of SC/ST candidates, though actually NPTI in its letter dated December 22, 2010 proposed to prepare a merit list in the ratio of 1:5 in respect of General and OBC category only. The NPTI had never recommended the ratio of 1:10 for SC candidates. Thereafter NPTI was requested vide letter dated January 29, 2011 to send the merit list of written test in the ratio of 1:5 in the case of General Category candidates and in the ratio of 1:10 in the case of SC category candidates. The NPTI forwarded the list of 11 candidates belonging to SC category, as the candidates at serial Nos. 10 and 11 were having equal marks in the written test. The petitioner was at serial No. 8 in the merit list for written test. The candidate at serial No. 2 in the merit list of written test was having 94 marks, whereas the petitioner in the merit list was having 76 marks in the written test. In the interview, the candidate at serial No. 2 in the merit list was awarded only 18 marks by the Interview Panel and the petitioner was awarded 34 marks. Infact the marks awarded to the petitioner were the highest amongst the nine candidates, who appeared in the interview in the SC category for the post of Executive Trainee (Finance). Hence, the enlargement of zone of consideration from 1:5 to 1:10 by misrepresenting/quoting wrong facts has resulted into calling of the petitioner for interview, who was at serial No. 8 in the merit list of SC category in the written test and she is a daughter of senior level officer of the company. She was finally got selected for the post of Executive Trainee (Finance) in SC category and was appointed as Executive Trainee (Finance) in the SC category. The respondent had also referred to the fact that the matter was referred to CVC for advice. The Commission in its OM dated April 08, 2013 and OM dated July 10, 2013 was of the view that the ward of a senior officer of the company was accommodated out of way by extending the zone of consideration from 1:5 to 1:10 without any precedence and by misrepresenting the facts before the competent authority. The Commission recommended detail enquiry under the major penalty procedures against three officers involved in the process of recruitment. The respondent has stated that they have penalised one officer by imposing a penalty of "Censure", whereas against two officers, charge - sheet under Rule 14 of the Rules are pending.